. Children Webmag .

Did You See …..

….. Supernanny? This was the title of a series of three TV programmes in which a qualified nanny, was called in to help three families with their children, who were untidy, impetuous, disobedient, destructive, angry, screaming, demanding and in control of their parents. After a few days with Supernanny, they were tidy, calm, obedient, constructive, happy, quiet and under the control of the adults.

The change was miraculous, literally. It was not magic, but it was something to be wondered at, demonstrating the impact of professional knowledge and skill.

There were several lessons to be learnt from this series. First, the problems were not the fault of the children, but the parents. The children were simply responding to the type of parenting to which they were exposed, and when Supernanny treated them in a different way, they responded differently.

Secondly, the main difference in parenting styles was that the failing parents were inconsistent and gave in when tested out by the children; Supernanny held her ground and firmly insisted on good behaviour. After initial discomfort, the children preferred to know where they stood, and were happier being controlled.

Thirdly, it was nice to see a child care professional respected for what she did. Too often, child care is seen as a low status job that any individual can do. Expert knowledge and training were demonstrably effective, which suggests that parents too could do with more teaching about ways to bring up children effectively.

….. the two-page spread in the Guardian about smacking (7 July 2004, Supplement, pp.14 – 15)? It covered the views of twenty-five people – parents and children – and their attitudes to smacking. As one might expect, there was a spectrum of views, ranging from those who thought it did no harm to those who felt it damaged and humiliated children. A feature common to several contributions was that adults admitted smacking children when they were at the end of their tether or out of control, or “to let off steam”. Another common strand was the anger and emotional hurt felt by the children, and the regret felt by many of the parents who had hit their children.

Poverty and Chastity

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oregon has filed for bankruptcy protection, following overwhelming claims for damages relating to the abuse of children by priests in the 1980s. This is seen by people whose claims have not been settled as a way of copping out and avoiding responsibility. The Archbishop denies this, saying that the due processes will ensure fairness. If the Church is ever to regain moral authority, it has to make amends with everyone who has been abused, even if this means that the Church is bankrupt. It needs to return to its root values. It is questionable whether priests should be required to be celibate, but if there is such a vow, they should practice chastity and children should not bear the brunt of the strictures under which they have to live. Poverty could also take the Church back to its core values. Wealth always risks causing corruption.

The Nature of Child Porn

A number of distinguished professionals have been prosecuted for down-loading child porn - Pop star Gary Glitter and Former Judge David Selwood for example. The investigations, prosecutions and findings of guilt have caused them and their families a lot of grief, brought them unwelcome publicity and, in some cases, ended their careers.

One might think this appropriate for people who are abusing children. Even if they use the defence that they are only looking at pictures rather than physically abusing the children themselves, the photos would probably not have been taken if there had been no market for them, and so their viewing was causing the abuse and exploitation of the children, even if it was post hoc.

The defence used by some of them, though, is that they were simply researching the subject for professional reasons. Now this could be a ready rationalisation, concealing underlying voyeurism. If so, it cannot be defended.

But what should people do who want to understand more about this sort of abuse? We are unaware of any other area of human behaviour where the offence is not portrayed on television or shown in other ways. We know what other offences are like, and so we can understand why they are wrong or assess the different levels of seriousness of offending.

In the case of child porn, the actual viewing is the offence, and so it is impossible to view it (unless one is a member of the police or a researcher) and form judgements about it. The ordinary concerned citizen has to take the seriousness of the offending on trust from those who are involved. We cannot check whether we agree with the standards set by the police and the courts. The blurry pictures shown in television documentaries give clues, but no more, and the nature of the offences is left to people’s imaginations.

This is a conundrum. Responsible people do not want to be prosecuted as viewers of child porn, and they do not want to encourage the abuse of children, but there is a real danger in the creation of offences which are only known in any detail to the police and the justice system and are not subject to the scrutiny of the wider community.

From the Case Files

Minuets of the meetings were seen…

But no cha-cha-chas?

---